Roberts v. Curry Grocery Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberts v. Curry Grocery Co.

88 S.E. 796, 18 Ga. App. 53, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 112

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 1, 1916

Docket7105

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 796 (Roberts v. Curry Grocery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberts v. Curry Grocery Co., 88 S.E. 796, 18 Ga. App. 53, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. The business was conducted in the name of “Oscar Roberta &' Co.,” not only without objection from Oscar Roberts, but with his full knowledge and consent; credit was asked for and obtained from the plaintiff in the name of the firm, on the faith of the membership of Oscar Roberts in the firm, and the evidence authorized the inference that he connived at the use of his name for this purpose. “An ostensible partner is one whose name appears to the world as such, and he is bound, though he have no interest in the firm.” Civil Code, § 3157.

2. “Prima facie, the execution of a negotiable note in the name of the partnership is within the scope of the partnership business, and binds the firm and individual members thereof.” Griffin v. Colonial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 126 (66 S. E. 382). See also Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126 (28 S. E. 611). It appears, from the evidence adduced at the trial, that Lizzie Roberts, one of the partners, actually signed in the firm name the note sued upon, after the firm name of “Roberts & Co.” had been affixed thereto by one W. J. Johnson, who signed as agent.

3. The special assignments of error as to the admission of evidence, and as to excerpts from the charge of the court, are without substantial merit, the evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wade, J.

1. The business was conducted in the name of “Oscar Roberta &' Co.,” not only without objection from Oscar Roberts, but with his full knowledge and consent; credit was asked for and obtained from the plaintiff in the name of the firm, on the faith of the membership of Oscar Roberts in the firm, and the evidence authorized the inference that he connived at the use of his name for this purpose. “An ostensible partner is one whose name appears to the world as such, and he is bound, though he have no interest in the firm.” Civil Code, § 3157.

2. “Prima facie, the execution of a negotiable note in the name of the partnership is within the scope of the partnership business, and binds the firm and individual members thereof.” Griffin v. Colonial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 126 (66 S. E. 382). See also Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126 (28 S. E. 611). It appears, from the evidence adduced at the trial, that Lizzie Roberts, one of the partners, actually signed in the firm name the note sued upon, after the firm name of “Roberts & Co.” had been affixed thereto by one W. J. Johnson, who signed as agent.

3. The special assignments of error as to the admission of evidence, and as to excerpts from the charge of the court, are without substantial merit, the evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 796, 18 Ga. App. 53, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-curry-grocery-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack